Predicting Rape Victim Empathy Based on Rape Victimization and Acknowledgment Labeling

Abstract

Two studies examined rape victim empathy based on personal rape victimization and acknowledgment labeling. Female undergraduates (Study 1, n = 267; Study 2, n = 381) from a Northeast U.S. midsize public university completed the Rape-Victim Empathy Scale and Sexual Experiences Survey. As predicted, both studies found that acknowledged “rape” victims reported greater empathy than unacknowledged victims and nonvictims. Unexpectedly, these latter two groups did not differ. Study 1 also found that acknowledged “rape” victims reported greater empathy than victims who acknowledged being “sexually victimized.” Findings suggest that being raped and acknowledging “rape” together may facilitate rape victim empathy.

Keywords

rape empathy acknowledgment

Rape is quite prevalent among college women (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Zinzow et al., 2010), and rape experiences have been associated with higher levels of empathy with other rape victims (Barnett, Tetreault, & Masbad, 1987; Deitz, Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, 1982; Smith & Frieze, 2003). Rape victim empathy is defined as the ability to deeply understand the perspective, emotions, and reactions of a rape victim (Deitz et al., 1982; Smith & Frieze, 2003).

Theoretical discussions on empathy suggest that perspective taking is greater the more one is similar to or familiar with another’s situation (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Krebs, 1975; Miller, Amacker, & King, 2011). This has served as a basis for explaining why college women with rape experience report greater empathy with a rape victim than those without such experience (Barnett et al., 1987; Deitz et al., 1982; Miller et al., 2011; Smith & Frieze, 2003). However, not all rape victims identify themselves as such. Many college women are unacknowledged rape victims (Koss, 1985); they report having an experience that fits a legal definition of rape, but do not label themselves as rape victims (Hammond & Calhoun, 2007; Littleton, Rhatigan, & Axsom, 2007; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011). Some researchers have also demonstrated that rape victims may be unacknowledged based on whether they identify themselves as victims using other labels (e.g., “sexual assault,” “crime”), including or instead of “rape” (Harned, 2005; Littleton, Axsom, & Grills-Taquechel, 2009; Marx & Soler-Baillo, 2005).

Although they may share a similar experience with other rape victims, if unacknowledged victims do not identify themselves as having been raped, their ability to take the perspective of a rape victim may be limited. Thus, rape victim empathy levels may be predicted, not only by similarity in rape experience but also by whether the experience is acknowledged as rape by the victim. Examining empathy with a rape victim based on personal rape victimization and rape acknowledgment was the primary purpose of the current two studies. The secondary purpose was to explore how other acknowledgment labels (i.e., Study 1, “sexually victimized”; Study 2, “sexually assaulted”) may be related to rape victim empathy and compare with “rape” acknowledgment.

Rape Victim Empathy and Rape

Rape victim empathy has been identified as an important factor in cases of sexual aggression. For example, empathy with a rape victim has been associated with juror’s and student’s rape trial-related judgments (i.e., guilt, responsibility, sentencing; Deitz et al., 1982; Smith & Frieze, 2003), and empathy among police officers has been associated with the likelihood that victims will take their cases to court (Maddox, Lee, & Barker, 2011). Rape victim empathy may also play an important role in treating sex offenders, curbing rape proclivities, and rape prevention educational programs (Deitz et al., 1982; Foubert & Newberry, 2006; Pithers, 1999). Thus, understanding rape victim empathy could have far reaching implications.

Consistent with the theoretical notion that similarity to a target rape victim may increase identification with, understanding of, and empathy with a victim (Cialdini et al., 1997; Deitz et al., 1982; Krebs, 1975; Miller et al., 2011), it has been found in three studies that undergraduate women who had been raped according to the legal definition reported more empathy with a rape victim than those without this experience (Barnett, Tetreault, Esper, & Bristow, 1986; Barnett et al., 1987; Smith & Frieze, 2003). The legal definition of rape in these studies was based on the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982), a widely used measure of sexual victimization experiences. However, the investigation of acknowledgment labeling among rape victims in rape victim empathy studies has been lacking in the literature.

Acknowledgment and Rape

Rape acknowledgment studies have focused on characteristics of the rape experience, such as level of physical violence, relationship to the perpetrator, and type of resistance (Fisher et al., 2003; Koss, 1985; Littleton et al., 2007), and outcome variables including symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, distress, depression, revictimization, coping, self-blame, and disclosing to someone about the assault (Hammond & Calhoun, 2007; Littleton et al., 2009; Littleton, Axsom, Radecki Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2006; Littleton & Henderson, 2009; Littleton et al., 2007; McMullin & White, 2006; Zinzow et al., 2010). The majority of past researchers have identified unacknowledged rape victims by asking participants questions regarding behaviors that meet legal definitions of rape. Most of these studies have also utilized the SES (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss et al., 1987), and adaptations of it, which excludes terms such as “rape,” “assault,” and “victim” to help identify victims who do not define their own experiences as such (Hammond & Calhoun, 2007; Littleton et al., 2009; Littleton et al., 2007; McMullin & White, 2006).

In addition to behaviorally specific rape questions, many researchers asked participants a direct question regarding whether they have ever been raped. Those who answered “yes” to a behavioral question (indicating that they have been raped), but “no” to the direct rape question were defined as unacknowledged rape victims (Littleton et al., 2007; McMullin & White, 2006). Those who answered “yes” to a behavioral question and “yes” to the direct rape question were defined as acknowledged rape victims.

In addition to the label rape, some researchers have offered participants other labels for their sexual victimization experiences, including “sexual assault,” “crime other than rape,” and “miscommunication.” However, whether participants chose the term rape to label their experience was still the only criterion in some studies for defining acknowledgment. In other words, if a participant said “crime other than rape,” or “sexual assault,” she was considered an unacknowledged victim (Hammond & Calhoun, 2007; Layman, Gidycz, & Lynn, 1996; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011). On the other hand, in some studies, women were defined as acknowledged if they labeled their experience as “rape,” “attempted rape,” or a “crime” (Littleton et al., 2009; Littleton et al., 2006; Littleton & Henderson, 2009). In lieu of the label rape, several researchers have asked participants a single question regarding whether they had ever been “sexually assaulted” (Botta & Pingree, 1997; Marx & Soler-Baillo, 2005), or had ever experienced “sexual abuse or assault” (Harned, 2004, 2005). Victims who answered “yes,” were defined as acknowledged.

Thus, in the large majority of studies, the definition of acknowledgment has been based on only one label (i.e., “rape,” “assault or abuse”), or has included multiple labels (i.e., “rape,” “attempted rape,” “crime”). However, examining differences between acknowledgment labels is scant in the literature (Zinzow et al., 2010). Nonetheless, the importance of label type has been considered (Fisher et al., 2003; Harned, 2005; Layman et al., 1996; Littleton et al., 2007). For example, Layman et al. (1996, p. 129) defined acknowledgment based on the label “rape,” but noted that “differences may exist between unacknowledged victims who believe they are not victimized versus those who believe they are victims of a crime ‘other than rape.’” Furthermore, past researchers have suggested that the most important way to distinguish between acknowledged and unacknowledged victims may be based on whether victims define themselves to have been generally “victimized” rather than define themselves based on a specific label such as “rape” (Harned, 2005; Littleton et al., 2007). Thus, there is a need for researchers to investigate the comparability of acknowledgment labels.

Study 1

Rationale and Hypotheses

To build on the current literature, the present study investigated rape victim empathy based on participant rape victimization and acknowledgment labels. Theoretically, similarity in rape experience may increase identification with, understanding of, and empathy with a hypothetical victim of rape. However, if a woman who has been raped does not identify herself as a rape victim, she may not be able to understand the perspective of a rape victim as well as that of a victim who acknowledges that she has been raped. Furthermore, if similarity in rape experience alone increases empathy, then all rape victims, regardless of acknowledgment status, should have greater rape victim empathy than nonvictims. Thus, hypotheses for the current study were that acknowledged “rape” victims would report the greatest level of empathy with a rape victim, followed by rape victims who were unacknowledged, and nonvictims.

Finally, studies have varied in their use of acknowledgment labels. However, empirical data regarding how different labels may compare are lacking in the literature. Thus, the secondary purpose of the current study was to explore whether differences in empathy would emerge between acknowledged rape victims and rape victims who acknowledged sexual victimization (but not rape).

Method

Participants

Participants were 267 undergraduate women ranging in age from 18-22 years old (M = 19.1, SD = 1.3) enrolled at a midsize public university in the Northeast United States. Volunteering to participate was an option for extra credit toward a psychology course. Fifty-six percent of the sample identified themselves as freshmen, 15% as sophomores, 6% as juniors, and 23% as seniors. Respondents reported ethnicity as European/European American (86%), African/African American (7%), Asian/Asian American (2%), Latino/Hispanic/Hispanic American (3%), and Biracial/Multiracial (2%).

Measures

To measure empathy with a rape victim, participants completed Smith and Frieze’s (2003) Rape-Victim Empathy Scale (REMV). This is an 18-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1-5 (strongly disagree-strongly agree). For each participant, scores were summed and divided by the total number of items, so that final scores could range from 1-5 with higher scores indicating greater empathy.

Sample items from the REMV include, “I find it easy to take the perspective of a rape victim,” “I know if I talked to someone who was raped I’d become upset,” “I can understand how helpless a rape victim might feel,” and “I can feel the emotional torment a rape victim suffers when dealing with the police.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the original REMV was .92, and was .88 in the current study. Smith and Frieze (2003) provided validity information for this scale by demonstrating that it positively correlated with a well-known general empathy measure, the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE), it negatively correlated with perceived rape-victim responsibility, and women who had been raped scored higher than women who had not been raped.

To identify women who have been raped according to legal definition and women who had no victimization experience, participants completed the widely utilized SES (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Oros, 1982). The SES consists of 10 “yes” or “no” questions designed to measure different types of sexual victimization experience (rape, attempted rape, sexual coercion, sexual contact) that can be categorized along a severity continuum (Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004). The three rape victimization items measure experiences of unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse/penetration by a penis or object, due to force, threat of force, alcohol, or drugs. Scores on the SES have corresponded with responses in interview format, and Cronbach’s alphas of .74 and .73 have been found in samples of college and community women, although responding “yes” to 1 question does not necessarily predict reporting experience with other items (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Testa et al., 2004). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the SES was .67.

Sexual victimization acknowledgment was measured by asking the following question, “Have you ever been sexually victimized?” Rape acknowledgment was measured by asking, “Have you ever been raped?” Participants responded “yes” or “no” for each acknowledgment item.

Procedure

The current study was approved by an institutional review board. Participants completed survey packets, which included demographic questions, the REMV, and the SES, in a classroom group setting. To ensure privacy, they were instructed to sit at least on alternate seats and to work individually. Participants were told that this study would be investigating sex-related attitudes and behaviors. The researchers obtained informed consent and participants were assured of their anonymity before receiving their surveys. On completion, participants placed their surveys into an anonymous drop bag and received a list of references for counseling options as they left the room.

Data analyses

Frequencies for each type of victimization measured by the SES and acknowledgment of rape and sexual victimization were analyzed for the full sample. Participants were categorized based on the most severe type of victimization experience reported on the SES (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Oros, 1982). Next, four groups (rape victims who acknowledged rape, rape victims who acknowledged sexual victimization, rape victims who were unacknowledged, and nonvictims) were formed to test the hypotheses. To compare the four groups, an ANOVA was performed on the REMV scores followed by a priori pairwise comparisons.

Results

Prevalence

Acknowledged rape victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES and responded “yes” to the rape acknowledgment question (n = 11). Acknowledged sexual victimization victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES and responded “yes” to the sexual victimization acknowledgment question, but “no” to the rape acknowledgment question (n = 13). Unacknowledged victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES and responded “no” to both acknowledgment questions (n = 17). Finally, those who responded “no” to all 10 victimization questions and both acknowledgment questions were categorized as nonvictims (n = 124).

Given the focus of the current study on rape, the subsequent analysis for empathy was restricted to participants who reported either rape experience or no experience on the SES. Thus, those who reported victimization experience(s) other than rape were excluded. Eleven participants were also dropped from analysis due to missing data on the SES rape items or acknowledgment questions. (One of these participants was also missing data on half of the REMV dependent variable items.) The pattern of results was not affected by missing data. See Table 1 for total sample frequencies of each type of victimization and acknowledgment.

Table 1.

Frequencies for Each Type of Victimization and Acknowledgment in Study 1.

SES victimization categories		Type of acknowledgment
		Raped		Sexually victimized
		Yes	No	Yes	No
Rape	(n = 41)	11	30	24	17
Attempted rape	(n = 20)	2	18	6	14
Sexual coercion	(n = 40)	1	39	4	36
Sexual contact	(n = 30)	0	30	4	26
Nonvictim	(n = 124)	0	124	0	124

Note. Participants were categorized based on the most severe type of victimization experience reported on the SES (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Koss & Oros, 1982). One participant responded “no” to all 10 SES victimization questions, but “yes” to sexual victimization acknowledgment. Eleven participants were missing data on the SES. SES = Sexual Experiences Survey.

Rape victim empathy

Results of the ANOVA revealed that the expected main effect was significant, F(3, 161) = 12.25, p < .0001, partial η² = .186. Using Dunn’s procedure to control for total experimentwise error for all pairwise analyses, a p ≤ .008 significance level was set. See Table 2 for means, standard deviations, and pairwise comparisons.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Pairwise Comparisons of REMV Scores in Study 1.

	M	SD	n
Acknowledged rape	4.57_a	.39	11
Acknowledged sexual victimization	3.94_b	.53	13
Completely unacknowledged	3.53_b	.66	17
Nonvictims	3.58_b	.55	124

Note. Means that do not share subscripts differ at the p ≤ .008 level. Scores could range from 1-5 and higher scores indicate greater empathy with a rape victim. REMV = Rape-Victim Empathy Scale.

As predicted, rape victims who acknowledged rape had higher empathy scores than those who were unacknowledged, p < .0001, partial η² = .457, and nonvictims, p < .0001, partial η² = .204. Unexpectedly, there was no difference in empathy scores between those who were unacknowledged and nonvictims, p = .749, partial η² = .001.

Furthermore, rape victims who acknowledged rape had higher empathy scores than those who acknowledged victimization, p = .004, partial η² = .325. The difference in empathy scores between those who acknowledged victimization and nonvictims, p = .026, partial η² = .036, and between those who acknowledged victimization and those who were unacknowledged, p = .081, partial η² = .105, did not meet the required significance level.

Study 2

Rationale and Hypotheses

Study 2 was conducted to test the Study 1 hypotheses and explore acknowledgment labeling with alternate measures. Past rape acknowledgment and empathy studies have largely utilized the SES (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss et al., 1987) to measure rape victimization, as was the case in Study 1. In 2007, Koss and her colleagues (2007) published a revised version of the SES to improve the measure. Study 2 used this updated measure. Thus, one difference between Study 1 and Study 2 was the use of the revised SES instead of the original version.

As noted in Study 1, past researchers have suggested that perhaps the most meaningful way to measure acknowledgment is to ask victims whether they define themselves as having been victimized (Harned, 2005; Littleton et al., 2006; Littleton et al., 2007). Consistent with this, Study 1 examined the acknowledgment terms, rape and sexually victimized. However, although the term sexually victimized is a broad term capturing all types of sexual victimization, it is not a legal term such as those used in past studies (i.e., “sexual assault,” “sexual abuse,” “crime,” and “attempted rape”). Thus, Study 2 was designed to utilize two legal terms (i.e., “rape” and “sexual assault”) for acknowledgment that have been used in past studies. In other words, another main difference between Study 1 and Study 2 was utilizing the label sexually assaulted instead of sexually victimized.

With the same theoretical rationale as in the first study, hypotheses for the second study were that acknowledged rape victims would report the greatest level of empathy with a rape victim, followed by rape victims who were unacknowledged, and nonvictims. Furthermore, differences in empathy between acknowledged rape victims and rape victims who acknowledged sexual assault (but not rape) were explored.

Method

Participants

Participants were 381 undergraduate female volunteers ranging in age from 18-22 years (M = 19.2, SD = 1.4), as in Study 1. Fifty-six percent of the sample identified themselves as freshmen, 14% as sophomores, 8% as juniors, and 22% as seniors. Respondents reported ethnicity as European/European American (72%), African/African American (15%), Asian/Asian American (5%), Hispanic/Hispanic American (3%), Biracial/Multiracial (4%), and Native American/Indian (1%).

Measures

Empathy with a rape victim was measured using the same scale that was used in Study 1, Smith and Frieze’s (2003) REMV. The Cronbach’s alpha for the REMV in the current study was .87.

To identify women who have been raped according to the legal definition and women who had no victimization experience, participants responded to the SES–Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al., 2007). This revised version of the SES includes 35 behaviorally specific items (9 items to measure rape), and differs from the original mainly by addressing language concerns related to instructions, gender, consent, behavioral definitions, and distinctions between types of victimization. The new version also includes attempted coercion in addition to the original categories (nonvictim, sexual contact, coercion, attempted rape, and rape). Research utilizing the revised SES has provided construct validity. For example, female college students who reported sexual assault experience on the SES-SFV perceived greater similarity to, indicated greater empathy with, and attributed less blame and responsibility to a hypothetical rape victim compared with nonvictims (Miller et al., 2011).

Sexual assault acknowledgment was measured by asking the following question, “Have you ever been sexually assaulted?” Rape acknowledgment was measured by asking, “Have you ever been raped?” Participants responded “yes” or “no” for each acknowledgment item.

Procedure and data analyses

Study 2 was approved by an institutional review board and followed the same general procedure as Study 1. The data analyses were also the same as in Study 1 with two exceptions. First, frequencies for each type of victimization were based on those measured by the SES-SFV (Koss et al., 2007). Second, acknowledgment frequencies were of rape and sexual assault. Thus, the four groups examined by an ANOVA and pairwise comparisons were rape victims who acknowledged rape, rape victims who acknowledged sexual assault, rape victims who were unacknowledged, and nonvictims.

Results

Prevalence

Acknowledged rape victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES-SFV and responded “yes” to the rape acknowledgment question (n = 13). Acknowledged sexual assault victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES-SFV and responded “yes” to the sexual assault acknowledgment question, but “no” to the rape acknowledgment question (n = 25). Unacknowledged victims were those who indicated rape experience on the SES-SFV and responded “no” to both acknowledgment questions (n = 69). Finally, those who responded “no” to all victimization questions and both acknowledgment questions were categorized as nonvictims (n = 165).

As in Study 1, the subsequent analysis for empathy was restricted to participants who reported either rape experience or no experience on the SES-SFV given the focus of the current study on rape. Thus, those who reported victimization experience(s) other than rape were excluded. Eighteen participants were also dropped from analysis due to missing data on the SES-SFV rape items or acknowledgment questions. (One of these participants was also missing data on an REMV dependent variable item.) The pattern of results was not affected by missing data. See Table 3 for total sample frequencies of each type of victimization and acknowledgment.

Table 3.

Frequencies for Each Type of Victimization and Acknowledgment in Study 2.

SES-SFV victimization categories		Type of acknowledgment
		Raped		Sexually assaulted
		Yes	No	Yes	No
Rape	(n = 107)	13	94	35	72
Attempted rape	(n = 29)	0	29	11	18
Coercion	(n = 23)	4	19	3	20
Attempted coercion	(n = 7)	0	7	0	7
Sexual contact	(n = 27)	0	27	5	22
Nonvictim	(n = 165)	0	165	0	165

Note. Participants were categorized based on the most severe type of victimization experience reported on the SES-SFV (Koss et al., 2007). Five participants responded “no” to all SES-SFV victimization questions, but four of these participants responded “yes” to sexual assault acknowledgment and one responded “yes” to both types of acknowledgment. Eighteen participants were missing data on the SES-SFV. SES-SFV = Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization.

Rape victim empathy

Results of the ANOVA revealed that the expected main effect was significant, F(3, 268) = 5.31, p = .001, partial η² = .056. Using Dunn’s procedure to control for total experimentwise error for all pairwise analyses, a p ≤ .008 significance level was set. See Table 4 for means, standard deviations, and pairwise comparisons.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Pairwise Comparisons of REMV Scores in Study 2.

	M	SD	n
Acknowledged rape	4.26_a	.54	13
Acknowledged sexual assault	3.88_ab	.58	25
Completely unacknowledged	3.72_b	.54	69
Nonvictims	3.65_b	.59	165

Note. Means that do not share subscripts differ at the p ≤ .008 level. Scores could range from 1-5, and higher scores indicate greater empathy with a rape victim. REMV = Rape-Victim Empathy Scale.

As predicted, rape victims who acknowledged rape had higher empathy scores than those who were unacknowledged, p = .001, partial η² = .119, and nonvictims, p < .0001, partial η² = .07. Unexpectedly, the difference between those who were unacknowledged and nonvictims, p = .379, partial η² = .003, was not significant.

The difference in empathy scores between rape victims who acknowledged rape and those who acknowledged sexual assault, p = .055, partial η² = .099, between those who acknowledged sexual assault and nonvictims, p = .072, partial η² = .017, and between those who acknowledged sexual assault and those who were unacknowledged, p = .232, partial η² = .015, were not significant.

Discussion

The present two studies contribute to the literature as the first to examine empathy with a rape victim based on rape victimization experience and acknowledgment labeling. Results from both studies partially support the hypotheses. Although all groups of participants reported at least some degree of empathy, women who were raped and acknowledged that they had experienced “rape” reported greater rape victim empathy than women who were unacknowledged rape victims and nonvictims. However, unacknowledged rape victims and nonvictims did not differ in their empathy levels. Thus, results from both studies suggest that being raped may not be enough to increase empathy with a victim. Rather, the rape victim may also need to acknowledge that she was raped to be better able to identify with and take the perspective of a rape victim.

The current studies also demonstrate that types of acknowledgment may influence a rape victim’s ability to empathize with another victim. In Study 1, those who labeled themselves as “rape” victims reported greater empathy than those who reported that they had been “sexually victimized.” In Study 2, there was a trend toward “rape” acknowledgment showing increased empathy compared with “sexual assault” acknowledgment, but the two groups did not differ. Furthermore, in both studies, those identifying with the label rape clearly reported greater empathy compared with unacknowledged victims and nonvictims. However, this was not the case for those identifying with the label sexual victimization in Study 1, and sexual assault in Study 2. Thus, identifying with the label rape may have the most powerful impact on a victim’s ability to empathize with another rape victim.

Given that labeling one’s own rape experience as “rape” may be important for increasing rape victim empathy, future researchers may want to carefully consider operational definitions of acknowledgment based on the focus of their studies. Regarding labels, the focus of the current studies was on empathy with a rape victim, and the scale used to measure empathy used the term rape victim. An interesting avenue for future research may be to examine types of acknowledgment to predict empathy with other types of victims. For example, perhaps victims who identify themselves as having been “sexually assaulted” would report greater empathy with a “sexual assault victim” than those who do not define their experience this way.

Other considerations for the current studies should also be noted. First, the data were correlational in nature, so causal conclusions cannot be made. Next, although acknowledging “rape” was compared with acknowledging “sexual victimization” in Study 1 and acknowledging “sexual assault” in Study 2, the labels sexual victimization and sexual assault were not compared directly with each other. Future researchers could continue to unravel how different labels for acknowledging sexual victimization experiences may compare on rape victim empathy and various other outcome measures. Researchers can also incorporate other factors that might have an influence on empathy (e.g., knowing a rape victim, other types of victimization, exposure to a rape prevention program). In addition, it should be recognized that each study utilized a different version of the SES to measure sexual victimization and rates of reported rape differed. In Study 1, 15% of the total sample reported being raped (41% unacknowledged) and in Study 2, 28% of the total sample reported being raped (64% unacknowledged). Nevertheless, findings comparing nonvictims, unacknowledged victims, and victims who acknowledged “rape” were consistent between the two studies. The consistency of these results across the two studies is also important given the small sample sizes and relatively low rates of acknowledged rape victims in each sample. Finally, as is true for the large majority of rape acknowledgment and empathy studies, the current samples were comprised of female college students, not allowing for potential demographic influences, such as age and gender. Thus, results may not generalize to other populations, to which future research could expand.

In conclusion, findings from both of the current studies were that rape victims who acknowledged “rape” were more empathic with another rape victim than unacknowledged victims and nonvictims. Furthermore, empathy levels between unacknowledged victims and nonvictims did not differ. Thus, although past research has shown that similarity to a rape victim based on the act of being raped may increase rape victim empathy, these results suggest that both being raped and acknowledging oneself as a rape victim may increase empathy. Furthermore, empathy may be best influenced by a rape victim’s acknowledgment of “rape” as opposed to another label (e.g., “sexual victimization”).

Therefore, helping unacknowledged rape victims recognize that they have been raped may allow them to better understand and empathize with other victims, as well as enhance self-understanding. This could potentially be important in the context of group-related educational and clinical interventions. However, although rape acknowledgment can be beneficial for victims in many ways (e.g., lessen self-blame, avoid revictimization, increase disclosure), caution is warranted as some women may be motivated to avoid the label rape for important reasons (e.g., stigma, feeling less in control, and increased emotional upset). Thus, victims could come to acknowledge their own experience as rape over time with guidance and support from others, rather than having the label imposed on them (Littleton et al., 2007; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2011).

Part of this process may include education about rape, given that unacknowledged victims tend to be less informed about sexual assault and have experiences that do not match their own rape scripts (Littleton et al., 2007). Thus, formal rape educational efforts can help individuals recognize behaviors that constitute rape, which may facilitate acknowledgment among victims and increase their empathy with others, as well as increase understanding among nonvictims. Increased acknowledgment of rape and empathy may help strengthen supportive networks among victims and increase awareness of rape prevalence. This is especially true considering that rates for unacknowledged rape in the current studies were high, as reported in past studies (Littleton et al., 2007). Understanding how victimization, acknowledgment, and other factors may influence empathy among both victims and nonvictims may also have important implications for the recent federal initiative, “Not Alone,” which is aimed at obtaining more accurate sexual assault prevalence rates on college campuses, preventing or intervening in sexual assault, providing better support for victims, and enforcing justice (White House Task Force, 2014).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Suzanne L. Osman, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Salisbury University. She received her PhD in social psychology from Syracuse University. Her research interests include sexuality and gender-related attitudes and behaviors, with a primary research program focused on understanding sexual aggression.

References

Barnett

M. A.

Tetreault

P. A.

Esper

J. A.

Bristow

A. R.

(1986). Similarity and empathy: The experience of rape. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 47-49.

Barnett

M. A.

Tetreault

P. A.

Masbad

(1987). Empathy with a rape victim: The role of similarity of experience. Violence and Victims, 2, 255-262.

Botta

R. A.

Pingree

(1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge their assaults. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 197-212.

Cialdini

R. B.

Brown

S. L.

Lewis

B. P.

Luce

Neuberg

S. L.

(1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.

Deitz

S. R.

Blackwell

K. T.

Daley

P. C.

Bentley

B. J.

(1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly, 20, 535-574.

Foubert

J. D.

Newberry

J. T.

(2006). Effects of two versions of an empathy-based rape prevention program on fraternity men’s survivor empathy, attitudes, and behavioral intent to commit rape or sexual assault. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 133-148.

Hammond

C. B.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2007). Labeling of abuse experiences and rates of victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 371-380.

Harned

M. S.

(2004). Does it matter what you call it? The relationship between labeling unwanted sexual experiences and distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1090-1099.

10.

Harned

M. S.

(2005). Understanding women’s labeling of unwanted sexual experiences with dating partners. Violence Against Women, 11, 374-413.

11.

Koss

M. P.

(1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.

12.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.

13.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.

14.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

15.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

16.

Krebs

(1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146.

17.

Layman

M. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

Lynn

S. J.

(1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 124-131.

18.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

Grills-Taquechel

(2009). Sexual assault victims’ acknowledgment status and revictimization risk. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 34-42.

19.

Littleton

H. L.

Axsom

Radecki Breitkopf

Berenson

(2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgment status relates to disclosure, coping, worldview, and reactions received from others. Violence and Victims, 21, 761-778.

20.

Littleton

H. L.

Henderson

C. E.

(2009). If she is not a victim, does that mean she was not traumatized? Evaluation of predictors of PTSD symptomatology among college rape victims. Violence Against Women, 15, 148-167.

21.

Littleton

H. L.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Axsom

(2007). Unacknowledged rape: How much do we know about the hidden rape victim? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 14, 57-74.

22.

Maddox

Lee

Barker

(2011). Police empathy and victim PTSD as potential factors in rape case attrition. Journal of Police Criminal Psychology, 26, 112-117.

23.

Marx

B. P.

Soler-Baillo

J. M.

(2005). The relationships among risk recognition, autonomic and self-reported arousal, and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in acknowledged and unacknowledged victims of sexual assault. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 618-624.

24.

McMullin

White

J. W.

(2006). Long-term effects of labeling a rape experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 96-105.

25.

Miller

A. K.

Amacker

A. M.

King

A. R.

(2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim: A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 64, 372-381.

26.

Peterson

Z. D.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(2011). A match-and-motivation model of how women label their nonconsensual sexual experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 558-570.

27.

Pithers

W. D.

(1999). Empathy: Definition, enhancement, and relevance to the treatment of sexual abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 257-284.

28.

Smith

C. A.

Frieze

I. H.

(2003). Examining rape empathy from the perspective of the victim and the assailant. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 476-498.

29.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

Koss

M. P.

(2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256-265.

30.

White House Task Force. (2014, June 18). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to protect students from sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.notalone.gov/assets/report.pdf

31.

Zinzow

H. M.

Resnick

H. S.

McCauley

J. L.

Amstadter

A. B.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2010). The role of rape tactics in risk for posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression: Results from a national sample of college women. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 708-715.